Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of
Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to
betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a
perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
granted by the victors. …
{2333}
Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
… It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
"Colve's commission described his government as extending from
15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
… The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapters 4-5._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 14-15._
_Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
volume 2._
_Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 9._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.
Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
Iroquois country.
"Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in
procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in
1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,
at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or
council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel
Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the
Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even
asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon
their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most
readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become
necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe
it into an act of at least partial submission to English
authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians
themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,
that might protect them against the French."
_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 1, page 15._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
French invasions of the Iroquois country
under De La Barre and De Nonville.
See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.
The Dongan Charter.
"The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the
'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by
Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one
of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,
sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.
Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save
in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which
the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The
instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great
city."
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, page 317._
ALSO IN:
_M. Benjamin,
Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 11)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.
In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made
Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new
commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of
all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory
and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country
between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,
thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of
government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to
reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the
administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor
was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of
whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in
Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the
government, and might pass laws, which however were, within
three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy
Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was
to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the
whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,
agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."
_J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 18._
_J. R. Brodhead, editor
Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 3, pages 537-554._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
The Revolution.
Jacob Leisler and his fate.
News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from
the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,
William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in
February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the
public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the
authority of the latter occurred until after the people of
Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,
Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and
casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a
little later by like action in New York. Two parties had
quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,
the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former
embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,
the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,
and the municipal authorities.
{2334}
The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the
citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the
imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been
overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was
invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the
legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might
delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the
principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German
by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five
train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one
of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous
opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and
determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by
the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced
great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of
citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to
become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel
Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly
for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the
'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert
Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of
the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and
champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was
formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.
They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested
him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief
magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.
This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained
to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the
public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he
proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary
sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a
letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had
done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to
assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but
departed presently for England, "after formally giving
authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his
absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made
known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and
the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several
counties of the province to elect their civil and military
officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The
counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually
and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became
greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who
was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'
as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the
indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was
compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other
councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they
acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an
independent government, and claimed to be the true and only
rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained
by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,
Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of
their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his
mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York
by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,
directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to
such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the
peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of
New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to
Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and
attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.
"From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed
an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler
justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the
people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at
once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed
councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,
and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war
with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed
Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of
1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in
the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take
possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the
governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme
power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the
province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of
the fort, without deigning to show the governor his
credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the
troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to
take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city
was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and
'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in
March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort
and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of
Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious
action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also
Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a
charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and
sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne
received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the
governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As
Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they
intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature
to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before
the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and
Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became
sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly
stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he
died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,
enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high
position in history of a patriot and martyr."
_B. J. Lossing,
The Empire State,
chapter 8._
"Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,
but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are
imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the
utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an
opposition led by persons who held office under King James.
They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the
office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity
as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a
patriot."
_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
chapter 3._
{2335}
"The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.
… And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a
martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,
aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as
one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors
of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a
traitor."
_W. Dunlap,
History of the New Netherlands,
volume 1, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_C. F. Hoffman,
The Administration of Jacob Leisler
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 3)._
_Papers relating to
Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
(O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2)._
_Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
(New York Historical Society Collection, 1868)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
Abortive expedition against Montreal.
French plans of conquest.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:
NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.
Bradford's press set up.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.
Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.
See CANADA: A. D. 1696.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
Capture of Port Royal.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.
See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
Zenger's trial.
Vindication of the freedom of the press.
"In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet
and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New
York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the
assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he
did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had
lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and
free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,
and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at
Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was
transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the
chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the
time when the ministry was warned that 'the American
assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of
Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as
governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John
Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate
had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped
contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all
things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,
was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,
and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,
broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no
sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch
at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …
To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of
Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and
insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of
the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:
'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in
England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby
displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent
of the council or waiting for the approbation of the
sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A
newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in
November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its
printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an
apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and
afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the
council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious
libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the
attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger
took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they
ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without
the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by
disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at
the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,
penetration, and application to business. All the central
colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial
the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable
Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for
Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You
cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give
the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to
the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The
jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and
they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is
not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is
the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not
guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York
the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous
defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the
press.'"
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Grahame,
History of the United States (Colonial),
book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
_W. L. Stone,
History of New York City,
2d period, chapter 2._
_E. Lawrence,
William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 7)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.
The first Newspaper.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.
How the Iroquois placed themselves
under the protection of England.
"Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at
Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had
received from England, and all the injuries that had been
inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow
to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The
Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion
of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.
They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the
King of England for help to regain their country from the
French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a
surrender of their country to England, to be protected for
their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for
their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and
represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian
chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois
confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of
Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their
territory to be subject to Great Britain."
_W. Dunlap,
History of New York,
volume 1, page 289._
{2336}
NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot.
Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.
In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and
bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than
the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or
8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine
fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the
burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An
indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a
reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot
formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,
to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was
confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a
robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly
turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among
the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight
lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by
turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no
counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient
evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all
sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in
passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to
save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy
convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and
seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement
then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices
against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being
a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes
to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and
executed."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 26._
_G. W. Williams,
History of the Negro Race in America,
volume 1, chapter 13._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.
Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.
The founding of King's College.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
The struggle for Vermont.
The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.
See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
Abortive expedition against Niagara.
Braddock's defeat.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
The French and Indian War:
English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
The French and Indian War:
Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
The French and Indian War:
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
The French and Indian War:
Completed English conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
The conflict of parties.
The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
and the Committee of Sixty.
"In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the
Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were
ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea
ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that
gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.
… An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,
engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any
connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or
'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by
Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers
was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of
Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.
Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of
the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January
20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch
with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the
year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve
others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a
proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April
15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,
followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance
assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'
landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat
and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood
out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried
Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening
before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by
the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was
enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by
the ship Samson on the 12th.
{2337}
Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston
Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most
effectual, and assuring them that their course would be
heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had
been the march of events that not till now did the merchants
and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their
concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly
compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible
committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted
more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had
been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations
condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men
who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote
Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and
acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the
lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the
Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens
seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal
inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might
run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a
considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the
Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by
advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel
Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'
… A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of
twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the
approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister
colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these
nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the
Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,
Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which
had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House
again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and
organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the
Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response
to another communication just received from Boston, by the
famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged
that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is
of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …
not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,
but for the security of our common rights;' and that the
advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to
the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be
exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative
suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common
rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York
was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before
a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of
Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates
to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose
for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,
and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to
the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at
the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the
committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to
substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."
This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate
expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently
opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a
unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,
at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest
clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of
the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the
'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."
_G. Pellew,
John Jay,
chapter 2._
"The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its
object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of
the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to
enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late
Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and
organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was
dissolved."
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, page 768._
ALSO IN:
_I. Q. Leake,
Life and Times of General John Lamb,
chapter 6._
_J. A. Stevens,
The Second Non-importation Agreement
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 11)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
The first provincial Convention held.
"The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
there was an elective council and an annually elected
assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
store several days without them. While they were on their way
to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
appeal to the people.
{2338}
The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
representatives from such of the counties of the province as
should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
[April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
provincial convention in New York—the first positive
expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
adjournment."
_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapters 17-18._
ALSO IN:
_W. Dunlap,
History of New York,
volume 1, chapter 29_.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action upon the news.
Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
Siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
The end of royal government.
Flight of Governor Tryon.
"On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of
Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open
hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of
Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of
the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,
together with a quantity which had been deposited in the
arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom
formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of
Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the
city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the
custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the
vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now
became necessary to organize some provisional government for
the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting
of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a
Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the
charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to
obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by
the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part
of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the
popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by
the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their
more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the
command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as
their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any
persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …
The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on
their colleagues to present a placable address to
Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment,
and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve
the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put
the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey
the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting
fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered
New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take
command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress
received him with a cautious address. Despite their
patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing
to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they
desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights
of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington
quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial
militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England
since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands
of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume
it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought
almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work
such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America.
The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with
expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of
the change which relieved them from the government of Colden.
… Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the
Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to
the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly
raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the
seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and
denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not
long before the two powers came into collision." This was
brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress,
directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were
exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat
from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded
the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens.
"Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but
finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the
pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he
determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the
'Asia.'"
_Mary L. Booth,
History of the City of New York,
chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_I. Q. Leake,
Life and Times of General John Lamb,
chapter 7._
{2339}
NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).
Flight of Governor Tryon.
New York City occupied by Washington.
Battle of Long Island.
Defeat of the American army.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
The struggle for the city.
Washington's retreat.
The British in possession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;
and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
Adoption of a Constitution and
organization of a State government.
Religious freedom established.
"After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies
proceeded to form State governments, by adopting
constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the
1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the
Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government
was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County,
were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The
committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John
Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer,
Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John
Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel
Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the
chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the
Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the
stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and
winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then
at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County,
and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they
continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the
committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the
12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It
was under consideration in the Convention for more than a
month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of
April. Under it a State government was established by an
ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first
session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston
in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay
and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for
Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor.
But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the
situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be
neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in
all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and
Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General
George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by
successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for
three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the
Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was
appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and
John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert
Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New
York was organized and put into operation at a time when it
was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern,
southern, and western frontiers."
_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 2, chapter 9._
The framers of this first constitution of the State of New
York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established
church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all
such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to
establish or maintain any particular denomination of
Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section …
which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being
the first organized government of the world to assert by
constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious
freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by
the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to
expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual
oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition
of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,
this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority
of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all
mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly
indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her
Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well
as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But
the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York,
which has since spread over most of the United States, and
lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not
freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought.
Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they
expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted
to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the
sea a century and a half before."
_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 2, pages 251-252._
ALSO IN:
_W. Jay,
Life of John Jay,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_T. Roosevelt,
Gouverneur Morris,
chapter 3._
_B. F. Butler,
Outline of Constitutional History of New York
(New York Historical Society Collections,
series 2, volume 2)._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1779.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
Opposition to the recognition of
the State independence of Vermont.
See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.
Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.
The Articles of Confederation.
The alliance with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
Fortifying West Point.
See WEST POINT.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
The war on the Indian Border.
Activity of Tories and Savages.
The Massacre at Cherry Valley.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).
{2340}
NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779.
Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1779.
Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1780.
Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.
The war in the South.
The surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1781.
Western territorial claims and
their cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
Evacuation of New York City by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1784.
Founding of the Bank of New York.
See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1786.
Rejection of proposed amendments
to the Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.
The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
The Holland Purchase.
The founding of Buffalo.
The conflicting territorial claims of New York and
Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English
crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims
to the United States which New York made in 1781 and
Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by
these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000
square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was
finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by
the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of
December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by
the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York
all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction
of all the territory lying west of the present east line of
the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the
pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of
the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying
west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of
Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said
state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake
to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New
York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of
Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length.
The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded,
amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788,
Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of
Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville,
Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to
all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about
6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in
three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip
Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was
to be received, which was then in market much below par. In
July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians
by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title
to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase
from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded
west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the
state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of
land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon
(Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence
north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the
confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of
said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras
(Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence
running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the
westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario.
On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts
conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps,
their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of
said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs.
Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This
tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps
and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the
proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they
had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square],
which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of
townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and
others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November,
1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two
townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a
quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who
soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English
gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold
at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other
property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity,
is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps
and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money
of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence
of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock
(in which the payments for the land were to be received) from
20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their
engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to
relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western
section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the
Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by
Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris.
Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his
purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school
fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the
Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The
remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western
New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and
came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.
_O. Turner,
Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
pages 325 and 396-424._
{2341}
"Much has been written and more has been said about the
'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially
precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet
there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the
Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city
of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were
citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the
United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not
hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts,
comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase,
was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the
legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land
within the State, and in the latter part of that year the
American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real
owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase
surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of
land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors
reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their
title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797.
One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by
the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland
proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and
made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he
secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and
the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of
land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the
founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which
subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek,
on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement,
became its harbor.
_C. Johnson,
Centennial History of Erie Company, New York,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_O. Turner,
History of the Pioneer Settlement
of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase,
part 2._
_O. Turner,
Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
pages 401-424._
_H. L. Osgood,
The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
(Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
The chief battle ground of the contest.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
The beginnings of Tammany.
See TAMMANY SOCIETY.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1790.
Renunciation of claims to Vermont.
See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.
During the session of the legislature in April, 1799,
"emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all
children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July
should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of
males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age
of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this
process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that
question of compensation which had been the secret of the
failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves
was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population
of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and
without excitement."
_G. Pellew,
John Jay,
page 328._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1805.
The Free School Society in New York City.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1807.
Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815.
The war on the Canadian frontier.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
1813 (DECEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
1814 (SEPTEMBER).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
The Clintonians and Bucktails.
During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the
State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between
his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he
audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison,
assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican
adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn
on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been
Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the
'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later
called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards,
the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren],
when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head
of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between
Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each
accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the
accusation of one of them was nearly always true."
_E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
page 56._
ALSO IN:
_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 3, page 227._
_J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, page 450._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
Construction of the Erie Canal.
"History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first
suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake
Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the
shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The
praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the
fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a
uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the
Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in
1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It
afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr.
Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to
have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley,
under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,'
continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first
brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject.
These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by
a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment
for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and
displayed deep research, with singular vigor and
comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic
accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In
1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in
pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson,
president of the United States, reported a plan for
appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general
government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads;
and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly
without exception, all the works which have since been
executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. …
{2342}
In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from
Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution,"
referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to
the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee
be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of
exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the
most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a
communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and
Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to
appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the
accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee
was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was
directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the
state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one
of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native
genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed,
under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes
to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed
that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and
could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion
of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished
throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts
to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt
Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William
North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed
commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland
navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake
Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian,
himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the
canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested
this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of
engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a
member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811,
submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which
they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous
canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate
of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this
report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law
on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to
provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this
state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert
Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to
consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with
powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress,
or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the
undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr.
Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the
subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison)
and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that,
although it was uncertain whether the national government
would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would
afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners
then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national
government, and that offer having virtually been declined,
the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims
of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the
canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as
soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of
June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners
and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the
treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any
measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the
country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of
internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic
efforts required to maintain the national security and honor."
But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise
prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and
"ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on
the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking
the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton,
having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the
state, and being president of the board of canal
commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending,
with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the
26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable
condition throughout its entire length, affording an
uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the
Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a
telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at
Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of
the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on
the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor
Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the
commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."
_W. H. Seward,
Notes on New York
(Works, volume 2), pages 88-117._
ALSO IN:
_D. Hosack,
Memoir of De Witt Clinton,
pages 82-119 and 245-504._
_J. Renwick,
Life of De Witt Clinton,
chapters 10-19._
_C. D. Colden,
Memoir: Celebration of the
Completion of the New York Canals._
_M. S. Hawley,
Origin of the Erie Canal._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1821.
Revision of the Constitution.
"The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its
framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to
insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the
Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically
beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to
because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit
of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions
of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive
power; and because the officers who thus interposed their
objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for
good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of
the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one,
in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could
be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly
responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment,
although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact
disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its
appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations
against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later
day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office
thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and
judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this
Council.
{2343}
In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their
commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power
was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed
'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this
State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision,
on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton,
Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and
Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of
the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it
did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the
question; and second, because it submitted the new
Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections.
These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael
Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9,
1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was
adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass,
not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a
committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee
subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to
the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of
the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was
subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of
the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding
the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For
Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The
Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned
November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and
its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of
Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The
principal department officers were directed to be appointed on
an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent
joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the
power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two
hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective
franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an
election held in February, 1822, by the following vote:
Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People
took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt
it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to
intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective
Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and
interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they
intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the
People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the
members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the
Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of
all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme
Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of
the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular
government took the place of parliamentary administration."
_E. A. Werner,
Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887,
pages 126-128._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1823.
The rise of the Albany Regency.
"The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the
political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren,
the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party.
Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service
approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William
L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott,
Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin
Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These
gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the
nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas
Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W.
Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not
believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at
any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly
twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state
politics."
_T. Weed,
Autobiography,
volume 1, chapter 11._
"Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and
generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix,
Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long
directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils
the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen
in 1885."
_E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
page 96._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
Anti-Masonic excitement.
The abduction of Morgan.
"The society of free-masons included a large number of the
foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed
that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions.
… This belief was used to create prejudice among those who
were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction.
At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of
Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to
print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested
on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge,
but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and
imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from
that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept
until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged
with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was
produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the
way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive
in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as
late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession
made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact
perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named,
after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was
active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with
mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation
was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn
laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became
the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was
one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was
alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be
'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but
the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with
volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the
literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of
sensational novels."
_E. H. Roberts,
New York,
volume 2, chapter 33._
{2344}
"A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose
the election of any Free Mason to public office. The
Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and
began to claim rank as a national political party. On most
points its principles were those of the National Republicans.
But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and
consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even
nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no
national principle of controlling importance, it soon after
declined."
_A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_T. Weed,
Autobiography,
chapters 20-30, 36, and 40._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.
The last of Slavery in the state.
"On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to
the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery
in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of
July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons
born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be
free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years
of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of
the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights,
which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of
slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was
produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden,
Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other
distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of
New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the
principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights
call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great
enterprise."
_J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_E. H. Roberts,
New York,
volume 2, page 565._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.
The Loco-focos.
"The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in
derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial
doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was
originally a division of the Democrats, strongly
anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to
banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which
enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and
exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic
candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the
anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly
confirm the nominations made in committee was called at
Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture
the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars,
however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by
reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage
the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the
devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready
with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly
illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had
defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful,
however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the
anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van
Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the
banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837,
Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular
Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."
_E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
pages 293-295._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1838.
Passage of the Free Banking Act.
See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1839-1846.
The Anti-rent disturbances.
See LIVINGSTON MANOR.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1840-1841.
The McLeod Case.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846.
Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension.
Hunkers and Barnburners.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1846.
Constitutional revision.
During the twenty-five years of the existence of the
constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments
were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing
presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending
the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and
in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The
commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the
elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the
census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants.
Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for
privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially
under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for
which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for
internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted
demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The
judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and
required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the
electors were called upon to decide whether a convention
should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted
in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The
convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October
9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango
presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany,
George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and
Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York,
Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in
State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the
principles of government. The new constitution gave to the
people the election of many officers before appointed at
Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses
of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the
cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an
independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of
chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the
supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts.
All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures
were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a
longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent
or service were reserved. The financial articles established
sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt,
forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited
rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except
to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the
school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for
general laws for the formation of corporations. The
constitution required the submission to the people once every
twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be
called or not."
_E. H. Roberts,
New York,
volume 2, pages 567-569._
{2345}
NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
The Free Soil movement.
The Buffalo Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
Legal Emancipation of Women.
See LAW, COMMON; A. D. 1839-1848.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.
See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April).
The speeding of the Seventh Regiment
to the defense of Washington.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
NEW YORK: A. D. 1862-1886.
The founding and growth of Cornell University.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1886.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.
The Draft Riots in New York City.
"A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with
the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by
volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not
filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of
July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was
attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to
call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals
had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the
draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic
journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for
the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any
draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in
this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and
denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is
doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including
any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited
state of the public mind, especially among the laboring
population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the
grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best
opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence
of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion
of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate
that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers
published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance
of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic
enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the
serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the
corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded
by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten
o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd,
who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National
Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress
but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!'
and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the
conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created.
Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down
everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office,
driving out at the back windows the officials and the
policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down
a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as
they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and
then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but
were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this
moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police,
approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set
upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with
clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a
mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued,
he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon
and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the
force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and
Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three
fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another
marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at
Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the
whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and
Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police
force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for
four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the
persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through
the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous
procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets,
pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!'
Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen,
marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners,
but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of
Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a
compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with
a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob
scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded
and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every
encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant
rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and
down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that
appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in
murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found
its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored
Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The
two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken
away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the
front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the
murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York
Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly
volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot
alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and
tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by
some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by
the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end.
About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died;
and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was
eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but
it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings,
destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth
of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to
the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and
promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications
to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and
asked to have it suspended till the question of its
constitutionality could be tested in the courts."
_R. Johnson,
Short History of the War of Secession,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 7, chapter 1._
_H. Greeley,
The American Conflict,
volume 2, chapter 21._
_D. M. Barnes,
The Draft Riots in New York._
{2346}
NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
The Tweed Ring.
Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a
considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the
control and into the power of a combination of corrupt
politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was
one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first
appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850.
Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he
adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand
Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the
general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the
Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not
completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most
important political organization in the city, was not absolute
even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart
Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former
mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in
this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic
nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was
appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now
fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its
members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of
the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided
their adherents with places in the city government, and when
the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city
pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political
influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State,
they packed the State legislature with their followers, and
placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In
1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its
candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character
than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest,
but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political
friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor
and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and
most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g.
illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration,
repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left
vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election
of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of
January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the
Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled
the common council of the city and the legislature of the
State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall
was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the
Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and
county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street
department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and
thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was
in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and
the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both
through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by
amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed
and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In
1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more
than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of
fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises
of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the
colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new
court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun,
it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed
$250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of
$8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed.
… Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors,
he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge.
… A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as
raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his
original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference
between the original and the raised bills was divided between
the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of
the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent
addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign
of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the
fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office,
came into the possession of the New York Times and were
published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of
citizens early in September. … It was followed by the
formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under
the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This
committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading
Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the
presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and
with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds
described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless
endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful,
and that prosecutions were brought against several members of
the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat
of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and
virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of
the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller,
with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for
the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office
gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence
afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the
autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the
better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the
political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading
actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure
the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience
in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed
the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country
and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a
favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America.
Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the
Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the
bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid
impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate
idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In
1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was
reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate
was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the
property in the city liable to taxation.
{2347}
In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and
the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical
purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax
rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years
and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at
the rate of $28,652,000 a year."
_F. J. Goodnow,
The Tweed Ring in New York City
(chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_S. J. Tilden,
The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall._
_C. F. Wingate,
An episode in Municipal Government
(N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875,
October. 1876)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1867.
The Public Schools made entirely free.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1867-1882.
Amendments of the Constitution.
The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision
at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the
calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular
vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates
assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment
was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution
proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in
1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary
article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided
for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases
pending in the Court, where business in arrears had
accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the
constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by
the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision
of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872,
and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by
the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and
1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these
amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise
without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment
for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at
elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some
changes were made in the provisions for districting the state,
after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature
was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the
legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the
governor was extended from two years to three; the governor
was empowered to veto specific items in bills which
appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was
allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his
hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills
become law only upon his approval within that time; a
superintendent of public works was created to take the place
of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a
superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three
inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the
bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate
Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or
granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any
county, city, town, or village to any association,
corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt
conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment
of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people
in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of
tolls.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.
Black Friday.
"During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the
promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth
thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our
purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases,
and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable
in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in
the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the
financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of
a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was
legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the
rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on
successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign
nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against.
The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So
large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering
up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that
it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of
gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their
chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of
Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one
partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this
business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made
them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm,
though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of
the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of
two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of
railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon
gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith
to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of
gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency
in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half
that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two
millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious
metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the
payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower
rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none
of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment
of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him
that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on
demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould
had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some
hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and
the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this
point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of
President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his
private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were
brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the
Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable
for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up
the price of gold. One important channel for such influences
was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New
York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the
speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases.
{2348}
By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the
price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they
ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter
part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then
frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me
like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out
then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He
therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the
financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for
some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency
of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more
palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed
the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve
millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among
thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All
Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except
those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did
his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President
himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when
General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see
him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap
set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould
such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither
Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their
personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots
urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the
country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country
of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the
Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr.
Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion
of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that
it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from
the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr.
Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at
Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the
sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this
letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at
once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the
13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide,
stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest
purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold
sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and
only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday,
September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the
purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five
cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the
profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake
worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was
opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments
against them; and more than all else, there stood the
Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions
of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its
plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin,
while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any
Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation,
addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to
interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and
the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do
so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but
unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in
which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private
messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter,
asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told
there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to
his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most
unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that
his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and
so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the
greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of
the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's
letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and
on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market
and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter,
which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to
their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half,
its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold,
coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr.
Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's
suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by
patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the
President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her
sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them
that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York,
and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage
himself from them; that the President was much distressed at
such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was
greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got
himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say
to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk
was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of
Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner
within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next
morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The
next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black
Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters
of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it
brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours
before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over
the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers
were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and
the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited,
palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an
hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144;
Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his
work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the
last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at
146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then
150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James
Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants
who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own
ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of
the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value
of their artificial metal.
{2349}
Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to
159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers
called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million
taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further
offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from
160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by
the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making
seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed
to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost
stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till
before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the
price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them
as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when
the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed,
and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of
gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room,
tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before.
Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all
their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the
precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the
news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed
to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold
fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no
purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought
sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay
therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But
Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges,
placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a
settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these
judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business
except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They
continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they
were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if
their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and
they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements
between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims
were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the
total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin,
Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and
therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone
else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the
operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less
than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those
transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less
than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two
afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million
dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away,
Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two
or three days the whole business of New York stood still
awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all
the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both
sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business.
Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send
to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw
millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they
beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives
of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by
the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected
by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business
were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small
clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession
of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm
had gone through business transactions to the amount of over
one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United
States would compel the completion of those bargains which
resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were
forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe
was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until
the present generation of business men has passed away will
the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."
_W. R. Hooper,
Black Friday
(The Galaxy, December, 1871)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1875-1881.
Stalwarts and Half-breeds.
See STALWARTS.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1881.
Adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.
NEW YORK: A. D. 1892.
Restored Tammany government in the City.
The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled
for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his
"ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the
chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive
"grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city
government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was
justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in
New York no official body that corresponds with the London
Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus
the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of
the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and
Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff,
the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of
New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of
the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the
twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other
officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of
men of about the same numerical strength as the London
Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official
life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred
thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every
municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual
merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British
empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing
openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of
twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief,
its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who
are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in
one way or another connected with that interest. So far as
there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss
the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in
the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an
organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of
public questions, either local or general, excepting the
'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military
rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends
through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New
York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance
of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the
offices.
{2350}
Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast
amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members
of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of
the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the
Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and
Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools
and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel
that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany
bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany
themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the
remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to
the Tammany domination. The following characterization of
Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening
Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any
legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and
contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at
the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or
in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only
thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is
how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the
places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could
make his way into the inner conferences at which these
questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion
of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to
repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to
supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous
adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths,
ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally,
abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers,
liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public
treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to
observe, the society is simply an organization of clever
adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the
control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an
attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a
particle of politics in the concern any more than in any
combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train
and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in
any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the
police.'"
_A. Shaw,
Municipal Problems of New York and London
(Review of Reviews, April 1892)._
NEW YORK: A. D. 1894.
Constitutional Convention.
A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention
to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the
election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at
large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to
represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the
advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act
was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total
number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all
elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district.
The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors
are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press.
Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the
greatest attention.
----------NEW YORK: End----------